Call of Duty Forum offers minimum system specifications for Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, revealing the upcoming first-person shooter sequel will not support Windows XP (thanks Destructoid/GameSpy). Word is: "Since we upgraded the engine to use DirectX11, Windows XP is no longer supported. It requires Windows Vista or later." They also outline PC-specific enhancements: "Black Ops II PC features enhanced lighting, shadows, antialiasing, bloom, depth of field, ambient occlusion, and other enhanced effects that are still in the works. And the game can run at higher resolutions and higher framerates on the PC." Here are the specifications:

Yes, work which requires no 3D API use whatsoever. That's becoming more and more rare.

For sure, but with VMWare supporting it - I think its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to do it. Its entirely possible that they already know how to do it, but just haven't got it implemented yet. Or they are waiting for Windows 9

I agree that there really shouldn't be a technical reason why they cannot do this - especially if they support only the D3D API and require a certain DirectX level on the host.

For what its worth, I've run some older games in VMWare with good results. From the testing I've done with it so far, at least for me, it makes more sense to continue using VMWare on my desktop but to use Hyper-V on my servers.

Tigger wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:13:And even if you could MAKE windows let you install the Hyper-V role or change the install order (Hyper-V THEN VMWare), most likely you would have to do a bunch of crap to prevent it from crashing.

You missed my point. My point was that you should be able to disable hardware virtualization in VMware without uninstalling it or changing your BIOS setting so you can test Hyper-V.

There isn't a way to disable hardware virtualization in VMWare as a whole (at least not that I know of), it can only be disabled per VM.

And even if you could, you would no longer be able to run 64-bit guests. HW virtualization is required for 64-bit guests.

And even if you didn't want to use a 64-bit guest, if you try to install Hyper-V when VMWare is installed, Windows will not let you.

And even if you could MAKE windows let you install the Hyper-V role or change the install order (Hyper-V THEN VMWare), most likely you would have to do a bunch of crap to prevent it from crashing.

Putting virtualization in a consumer OS like Windows 7 and 8 and then not being able to use it for any applications which use Direct3D or OpenGL is just pointless. A server can get away with only running 2D apps, but a consumer PC can't. Even business applications like many of Adobe's products have 3D functionality. Microsoft has no excuse for doing that especially since it develops Direct3D.

Tigger wrote on Sep 5, 2012, 14:39:Then there really is no point to trying it out. Hyper-V won't install if you don't have virtualization enabled in the BIOS (at least it didn't in Windows 2008 and 2008 R2).

You missed my point. My point was that you should be able to disable hardware virtualization in VMware without uninstalling it or changing your BIOS setting so you can test Hyper-V.

Without HW virtualization, you'd need to have a real monster of a machine to get good performance out of a VM.

I've run VMware on PC's which didn't have hardware virtualization because Intel left it out as an incentive to buy a more expensive CPU, and the performance was still usable for general use. I didn't try gaming.

Yeah, I don't think Microsoft is going for the legacy gaming market with Hyper-V. I think what they are going for is server consolidation (Windows Server), testing and backwards compat (Windows 8).

Putting virtualization in a consumer OS like Windows 7 and 8 and then not being able to use it for any applications which use Direct3D or OpenGL is just pointless. A server can get away with only running 2D apps, but a consumer PC can't. Even business applications like many of Adobe's products have 3D functionality. Microsoft has no excuse for doing that especially since it develops Direct3D.

Actually I've now read online that you can use both at the same time if VMware is set not to use hardware virtualization mode.

Then there really is no point to trying it out. Hyper-V won't install if you don't have virtualization enabled in the BIOS (at least it didn't in Windows 2008 and 2008 R2).

Without HW virtualization, you'd need to have a real monster of a machine to get good performance out of a VM. If it came down to that, I'd just build a super cheap Windows XP machine with a somewhat modern graphics card and install old games on that.

I've also now read that Hyper-V doesn't support hardware 3D so it sounds like it is still basically just Microsoft's Virtual PC product integrated into Windows 8 which means it is useless for games.

Yeah, I don't think Microsoft is going for the legacy gaming market with Hyper-V. I think what they are going for is server consolidation (Windows Server), testing and backwards compat (Windows 8).

eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 4, 2012, 20:56:Messing around with VMWare is already a hassle. Especially considering the terrible 3d performance you get with them old games...

VMware Workstation version 7, 8, and 9's performance with games is excellent especially if you have decent hardware. I have even run Unreal Engine 3 games under my VMware Windows XP VM, and they are playable. The only real limitation is that it doesn't support Direct3D10 or 11 which isn't a problem for XP VM's since XP doesn't support those either.

I have not tried Windows 8's consumer version of HyperV, but VMware Workstation v7/8/9 or Player v4/5 is the only virtualization software I know of that provides both hardware Direct3D and OpenGL capability and decent performance. Windows 7's "XP compatibility mode" is nothing but Virtual PC and as such is useless for games since it lacks hardware 3D support. VirtualBox has experimental hardware 3D support, but it's buggy and slow.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 2012, 21:27.

24.

Re: Windows 7 was not exclusively 64-bit because of compatibility issues.

I have to admit that I would just download them in a .. non-broken form even if I have them Messing around with VMWare is already a hassle. Especially considering the terrible 3d performance you get with them old games...

23.

Re: Windows 7 was not exclusively 64-bit because of compatibility issues.

It's really too many to list. If it is a game for Windows and came out in the mid-to-late 1990's, there's a good chance that it has a 16-bit installer even if it is not a 16-bit game. I believe all Windows games from LucasArts up to and including X-Wing Alliance are that way. I pulled the first LucasArts game CD-ROM I saw from my shelf (The Phantom Menace game) and tested it, and it won't install on Windows 7 x64 because it has a 16-bit installer even though the game came out in 1999. The game will run and install on XP though.

22.

Re: Windows 7 was not exclusively 64-bit because of compatibility issues.

hb3d wrote on Sep 4, 2012, 19:05:One negative side effect of killing off XP support in games is that they won't run under Linux with WINE either because WINE doesn't yet support the DirectX10 & 11 API's.

Getting Direct3D10 & 11 functions translated to OpenGL in Linux is certainly possible, but then again the same could also be done via OpenGL in XP.

Flatline wrote on Sep 4, 2012, 16:25:I'm not sure *why* Windows 7 didn't come default as a 64-bit system in fact.

because of compatibility problems/limitations

64-bit versions of Windows won't run 32-bit drivers, and there were a lot of 32-bit drivers out there back when Windows 7 was released and there still are although less so now that 64-bit versions of Windows have grown in popularity. Also note that these 32-bit drivers aren't just for hardware devices. Some software applications also have 32-bit drivers which provide underlying functionality.

Another compatibility issue was most Intel Atom processors run only in 32-bit mode, so a 64-bit version of Windows won't work on them. Back in 2009 when Windows 7 was released Atom-based netbooks were still quite popular, and Microsoft wanted OEM's to install Windows 7 on them not XP.

Another thing that 64-bit versions of Windows lack is 16-bit code compatibility. And while that doesn't sound like it would be a issue today, if you like to play retro games, a surprising number of 32-bit games from the Windows 9X days were released with 16-bit installers. So, while the games themselves might otherwise play on 64-bit Windows, they can't be installed on 64-bit Windows.

I personally prefer to use 64-bit Windows myself, but I have to keep a VMware Workstation VM running XP around to handle compatibility issues with older peripherals and games.

Its easy to rag on Microsoft, but when it comes to Win 7 64 they really nailed it. Granted its not like that was their first whack at it (Vista), but a success is a success. XP literally is too old at this point. I don't even want to think about all the boot drivers I'd have to collect just to make it start on my current rig.